C.F.R. » Title 19 » CHAPTER III—INTERNATIONAL TRADE ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE › PART 351—ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTIES › Subpart D—Calculation of Export Price, Constructed Export Price, Fair Value, and Normal Value

19 C.F.R. § 351.411

Differences in physical characteristics

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Introduction. In comparing United States sales with foreign market sales, the Secretary may determine that the merchandise sold in the United States does not have the same physical characteristics as the merchandise sold in the foreign market, and that the difference has an effect on prices. In calculating normal value, the Secretary will make a reasonable allowance for such differences. (See section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.)

(b) Reasonable allowance. In deciding what is a reasonable allowance for differences in physical characteristics, the Secretary will consider only differences in variable costs associated with the physical differences. Where appropriate, the Secretary may also consider differences in the market value. The Secretary will not consider differences in cost of production when compared merchandise has identical physical characteristics.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1999–2025 · leading case: Thai Plastic Bags Indus. Co. v. United States, 746 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Thai Plastic Bags Indus. Co. v. United States, 746 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014). · cites it 7× “Commerce supported its emphasis on physical differences in part by analogizing to the DIFMER analysis in 19 C.F.R. § 351.411 (b). See also 19 U.S.”
Bohler Bleche GMBH & Co. KG v. United States, 324 F. Supp. 3d 1344 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2018). · cites it 3× “§ 1677b(a)(6)(C)(ii) ] and 19 CFR 351.411." Id. at 14. This adjustment is called a DIFMER.”
Dong-A Steel Co. v. United StatesPublic version posted 10/01/2020., 2020 CIT 139 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2020). · cites it 2× “’s Reply at 20 (quoting IDM at 36); see also 19 C.F.R. § 351.411 (b). However, DOSCO does not provide any evidence of the purported distortions resulting from Commerce’s determination.”
Thai Plastic Bags Indus. Co. v. United States, 752 F. Supp. 2d 1316 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2010). · cites it 3× “For this purpose, [ 19 C.F.R. § 351.411 (b)] directs us to consider differences in variable costs associated with the physical differences in the merchandise, i.”
Thai Plastic Bags Indus. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2012 CIT 86 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2012). · cites it 3× “See 19 C.F.R. § 351.411 (b). Commerce also has a practice of comparing cost allocations using physical characteristics of the product in its determination of whether a company’s cost allocation strategy reasonably reflects actual costs.”
Mitsubishi Heavy Indus., Ltd. v. United States, 54 F. Supp. 2d 1183 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1999). “§ 1677b(a)(6)(C)(ii); 19 C.F.R. § 351.411 (1998); see also _ Antidumping Manual, Ch.”
Viraj Forgings, Ltd. v. United States, 283 F. Supp. 2d 1335 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003). “*1356 § 1677b(a)(6)(C)(ii) 20 and 19 C.F.R. § 351.411 (1999). 21 In response to Plaintiffs arguments, Defendant states that Plaintiffs concerns regarding the comparison of dissimilar merchandise are addressed by including size among the comparison criteria, and using the DIFMER…”
Manchester Tank & Equip. Co. v. United States, 2020 CIT 173 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2020). “411 (a) (Commerce “may determine that merchandise sold in the United States does not have the same 5 Those characteristics are, in order of preference: (A) The subject merchandise and other merchandise which is identical in physical characteristics with, and was produced in the…”
Mid Continent Nail Corp. v. United States, 712 F. Supp. 2d 1370 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2010). “§ 1677b(a)(6)(C)(ii); 19 C.F.R. § 351.411 . These adjustments provide an opportunity for the introduction of inaccuracies into the process.”
Tung Fong Indust. Co., Inc. v. United States, 318 F. Supp. 2d 1321 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004). “§§ 1677 (16)(B)-(C), 1677b(6)(C)(ii); 19 C.F.R. § 351.411 . Those difference in merchandise (“difmer”) adjustments are calculated based on the differences in the costs of materials, labor, and variable factory overhead attributable to the physical differences in the goods.”
Viraj Forgings, Ltd. v. United States, 350 F. Supp. 2d 1316 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2004). “§ 1677b(a)(6)(C)(ii) and 19 C.F.R. § 351.411 . For that reason, Viraj I, did not hold that Commerce may not make weight comparisons of flanges and forgings.”
NTN Bearing Corp. of Am. v. United States, 368 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “The agency used this value, which represents differences in physical characteristics between merchandise sold in the United States and that sold abroad, see 19 C.F.R. § 351.411 (a) (2003), to control which U.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— 19 C.F.R. § 351.411(b) — 1 case
Thai Plastic Bags Indus. Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2012 CIT 86 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2012). “See 19 C.F.R. § 351.411 (b). Commerce also has a practice of comparing cost allocations using physical characteristics of the product in its determination of whether a company’s cost allocation strategy reasonably reflects actual costs.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.